Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (19345)	1/2/2008 11:48:23 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 36921

It's not called Nairobbery for nothing.

To: maceng2 who wrote (19345)	1/2/2008 12:09:15 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Gore to 'spiral' Former Vice President Al Gore could not have been pleased to read the end-of-the-year editorial on "global warming" this week in Investor's Business Daily. "If 2007 was the Year of Al Gore, with his movie, Academy Award and Nobel Prize, 2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack," opines the newspaper. "The fissures started to show in 2007: "Prominent French physicist Claude Allegre called Gore a crook and equates Gore's French followers with religious zealots. Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman said global warming is 'the greatest scam in history.' Gore continued to duck open invitations to debate his theory. More than 400 scientists disputed the global warming claims." Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told IBD that it will take several years for the climate change scare to finally die, but "the death spiral will begin at some point, and it looks like the spinning will start in '08."

To: maceng2 who wrote (19345)	1/2/2008 2:09:53 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

It does not matter if any or all temperature measurements are accurate or out too lunch. Is there a long term additive effect of .00000273C or .0000273C degrees per day being added to the global temperature or is it being subtracted? (a century change of 1 to 10 degrees C) Adding up and averaging gives information, but I'll go with satellite observations. It does not matter if the global temperature is rising or falling as all basic science shows CO2 does not have any effect. There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming nov55.com The Ill-Informed Assumptions The assumption of some persons is that shorter distances mean the heat stays in the atmosphere longer before escaping into space. Supposedly, the radiation will be re-emitted and re-absorbed more often, when distances are shorter. But they err in two ways. One is in not taking into account the convection which removes the relevance of short distances. The other is in assuming the direction is toward space. When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The only way heat can move toward the outer atmosphere is through convectional currents. Here's how the dynamic works. The IR is emitted from the surface of the earth as black body radiation, which has a wide bandwidth. Then CO2 absorbs a fingerprint set of frequencies, which is 8% of the available black body radiation. As it is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second). The heat is distributed over all molecules in the atmosphere, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time, an equivalent amount of black body radiation is emitted from everything in the atmosphere, and 8% of it is absorbed by CO2 as fingerprint radiation. Proponents do not have clear explanations for their assumptions. They use computer models and juggle the numbers until they get the results they want.